I'll sum up the drivers license issue as best as I can.
You shouldn't necessarily allow an illegal to get a license, but the system should not be a thick enough to even figure out if an applicant is or is not legal. If any human being applies, the process should be agnostic. If you make the system more than agnostic, you're making the cost of the process prohibitive for the taxpayers while adding no value.
Yeh, they are going to buy auto insurance-are you kidding me? They can't speak english but they are going to know all our traffic laws? Hey, heres an idea-how abort deporting them? Hear anything about laws, or do they mean nothing to you?.............................................. .........
And you know they won't buy insurance how? You buy a car, you register it with proof of insurance.
I didn't know traffic SIGNS were all worded. Maybe in your own little world they are.
The exams are written in various languages for that purpose Einstein.
How "abort" deporting them? By the tone of your rhetoric I get the feeling YOU might want to shoot them too?
Maybe you should read your little post about "common sense" and "brains". Have a feeling you could use some improvement in both areas.
And you know they won't buy insurance how? You buy a car, you register it with proof of insurance.
I didn't know traffic SIGNS were all worded. Maybe in your own little world they are.
The exams are written in various languages for that purpose Einstein.
How "abort" deporting them? By the tone of your rhetoric I get the feeling YOU might want to shoot them too?
Maybe you should read your little post about "common sense" and "brains". Have a feeling you could use some improvement in both areas.
You assume too much.
Here is what you really do. First you buy a car. Then you don't register it. Lastly what you do is go find any car that has the registration sticker stuck on top of the old sticker, peel it off, and stick it on your plate.
Then you drive with no registration and no insurance. Not really to hard since you are driving with no license either.
Maybe in your own little world you didn't have to take a razor blade and run it through your registration sticker to keep them from being stolen but when I worked in Long Beach and South Central LA, I did have to do that after I got sick of being pulled over MYSELF for them being missing. The third time in one year was enough for me and I was shown the razor blade trick by my fellow teachers.
And only someone who has no base for their reasoning would have to resort to claiming that someone who wants legal and illegal immigrants treated differently must also be seeking genocide.
No supporting illegal immigration rights does not equal kill all foreigners. Got that? Good.
Right. It's soooo difficult to double check those documents. Here's an idea...maybe they don't care to double check them?
Except for one thing there Sherlock, you have to have a rational to question the documentation.
See if you just assume you should check them because the guy is Mexican, that is called RACIST and RACIAL PROFILING.
Unless you have reason to doubt the documentation you have to accept it as it is given with no doubts.
Trying owning a business yourself and when someone who isn't an illegal immigrant gets pissed off at your racist questions regarding their background and documentation, they will own your business and you will be on the evening news.
Funny thing is I know you would be the first a$$hole screaming about racial profiling when certain ethnicities were disproportionately subjected to background checks.
See, but you should check in case they're Czech, Australian, Chinese or Lithuanian too.
Sure and check them if they are native born citizens as well because who the hell needs privacy in this day and age?
I totally want my employer in my a$$crack just to make sure someone else isn't giving out a fake license and isn't accused of racism.
This ist just like the license issue where instead of background checks, they wanted to fingerprint the entire state.
I don't need to give up my privacy just so we can persecute some business owner for hiring an illegal immigrant who broke the law to get into the country and then broke the law to get illegal documentation.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that whole your rights ends at my nose thing. I don't want people's noses in my business just to try to justify findind out illegals are illegal and suing the business owner. Way too much time and inconvenience there.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that whole your rights ends at my nose thing. I don't want people's noses in my business just to try to justify findind out illegals are illegal and suing the business owner. Way too much time and inconvenience there.
Not jerky at all.
I think business owners already have to 'prove' that the people trying to get jobs are legit. So, I'm not sure what else they would have to do. You can't get hired legally with just a license. If you've got fake papers then the whole license issue is moot.
I'd be most grateful if anyone of you fine and learned persons could anser you these two questions:
1. When applying for a driving licence in California (or any other state of the Union), is one required to show some valid document attesting one's identity or is it enough to say ?I'm Moishelé Abencadoque from Barstow, California??
2. In your prefectures, does a driving licence serve any purpose other than attesting that its bearer successfully passed a driving test?
I think business owners already have to 'prove' that the people trying to get jobs are legit. So, I'm not sure what else they would have to do. You can't get hired legally with just a license. If you've got fake papers then the whole license issue is moot.
You usually have to show a social security number as well or proof of legal immigration. These documents are easily purchased.
You are correct that it makes it moot for the business owner. However the state has more rights than the business owner. Since it produces the documents being forged, they have the right to take action against it, check backgrounds, etc.
Instead people want the state to hand out licenses with no background checks, then sue owners for highering folks illegally. The responsibilities are too mixed up there.
What Prop 187 proved is that even with the state involved it is a convulted issue. The state shouldn't even be into background checks either. Rather they should leave it a federal issue and use federal documents (Social Security cards, green cards, etc.) to prove backgrounds are ok.
Of course that would require them being legal of course...
2. In your prefectures, does a driving licence serve any purpose other than attesting that its bearer successfully passed a driving test?
This is an incomplete answer, but since no one else has volunteered:
In California, a driver's license is generally accepted as proof of identity by businesses. While this may not be its intended purpose, common uses are
verification of age for purchase of tobacco or alcohol
verification of identity for boarding an airplane
verification of identity for check cashing
verification of signature for credit card transactions
Here are some interesting situations:
Once, about 25 years ago, when a passanger travelling in an automobile between San Diego and Los Angeles, my citizenship was questioned at an INS station. My California driver's license was not accepted as a valid proof of citizenship. For years following, I carried my passport.
Out of habit, the first identification I show is my military ID card. (Usually the only time I need to prove my identity is when going on a military base.) On occasion, some businesses have preferred to see my California driver's license as proof of identity rather than the military ID.
" To apply for an original driver license if you are over 18, you will need to do the following:
-Visit a DMV office (make an appointment for faster service)
-Complete application form DL 44 (An original DL44 form must be submitted. Copies will not be accepted.)
-Give a thumb print
-Have your picture taken
-Provide your social security number
-Verify your birth date and legal presence
-Pay the $12 application fee (the application fee for a commercial driver license is $57)
-Pass a vision exam
-Pass a traffic laws and sign test. There are 36 questions on the test. A passing score is at least 31 correct answers. You have three chances to pass."
Here is what you really do. First you buy a car. Then you don't register it. Lastly what you do is go find any car that has the registration sticker stuck on top of the old sticker, peel it off, and stick it on your plate.
LMAO...and -I- assume too much?? yeah, all undocumented car owners do that.
Quote:
Then you drive with no registration and no insurance. Not really to hard since you are driving with no license either.
Exactly genius...no license because they can't get one. It's safer to think that the undocumented, or illegals if it makes you happier, would want to comply with as many laws as possible considering they WANT to remain in the country. You get stopped without insurance or a license and you lose the car. Not that complicated you know.
Quote:
Maybe in your own little world you didn't have to take a razor blade and run it through your registration sticker to keep them from being stolen but when I worked in Long Beach and South Central LA, I did have to do that after I got sick of being pulled over MYSELF for them being missing. The third time in one year was enough for me and I was shown the razor blade trick by my fellow teachers.
How correct you are on that one. In my world, that razor blade "trick" is called common sense. By the way, kids of all ethnicities and backgrounds steal those for fun...but of course let's blame the "illegals" for that too.
Quote:
And only someone who has no base for their reasoning would have to resort to claiming that someone who wants legal and illegal immigrants treated differently must also be seeking genocide.
Yeah, I have no base for reasoning...whatever that means. And I did not "have to resort" to anything. I was being sarcastic. Genocide? You can't be that dense?
Quote:
No supporting illegal immigration rights does not equal kill all foreigners. Got that? Good.
You mean noT supporting illegal immigration? You're funny. In my post I used sarcasm regarding the other guy's attitude towards illegal immigrants. You on the other hand grouped everyone into one category: foreigners. There is a difference. Got it? Nah, that's asking too much.
Quote:
Except for one thing there Sherlock, you have to have a rational to question the documentation.
See if you just assume you should check them because the guy is Mexican, that is called RACIST and RACIAL PROFILING.
Nice try. By the way, the word you were looking for was RATIONALE.
Quote:
Unless you have reason to doubt the documentation you have to accept it as it is given with no doubts.
Trying owning a business yourself and when someone who isn't an illegal immigrant gets pissed off at your racist questions regarding their background and documentation, they will own your business and you will be on the evening news.
I own a business and it appears to me you don't have the IQ or the business acumen to . There are ways to get the facts necessary to safely and ethically hire someone without coming across as racist.
Quote:
Funny thing is I know you would be the first a$$hole screaming about racial profiling when certain ethnicities were disproportionately subjected to background checks.
How impressive. He called me an a$$hole. Do you feel so overwhelmed in this discussion that you have to resort to insults? Who the f*ck are you to assume things about me anyway? You don't know anything about me. Come back when you can at least pretend this discussion is not way out of your league. And bring your dictionary.
Edit: maybe you could borrow a dictionary from your elementary school....lmao. Ah, the irony.
Gilsch, whenever you didn't want to answer one of Trumpetman's points, you made fun of his spelling. Congratulations, issue dodger.
I get into it with both sides quite frequently. I see the same stupid tactics from both sides too. You are no different than Scott or SDW, Gilsch. It's all about bobbing and weaving and attempting to belittle the other person. You and SDW are exactly what's wrong with America today.
LMAO...and -I- assume too much?? yeah, all undocumented car owners do that.
Your statement made it clear that you didn't think they could get their car on the road and not get pulled over due to the fact that the lack of insurance would keep them from registering their vehicle. All I did is show you that by stealing a sticker from another car, they avoid that issue and so you point was moot.
Your assumption was that they couldn't drive their car, I just stated one way around it. That doesn't assume all undocumented car owners do that. It just shows it doesn't stop them from driving. The fact that they may use a different means of getting their car illegally on the road doesn't mean I am assuming, it means you are just flat out wrong about the fact that they cannot drive without registration and insurance. They can and do.
Quote:
Exactly genius...no license because they can't get one. It's safer to think that the undocumented, or illegals if it makes you happier, would want to comply with as many laws as possible considering they WANT to remain in the country. You get stopped without insurance or a license and you lose the car. Not that complicated you know.
Yes except for one issue there buddy, they are likely licensed in their home country and that means they aren't driving without a license. It just means they are driving without a California drivers license.
From the DMV website..
Quote:
Visitors To California
If you are a visitor in California over 18 years old and have a valid driver license from your home state or country (where you live permanently), you may drive in this state without getting a California driver license as long as your home state license remains valid.
Driving without proof of insurance or updated registration gets you a ticket. The ticket is for a fine which gets added to your DWV fees the next time you register the vehicle. It is a fix it ticket. I have received one myself. (I think I mentioned that I had this happen 3 times in one year) They do not tow your vehicle.
Quote:
How correct you are on that one. In my world, that razor blade "trick" is called common sense. By the way, kids of all ethnicities and backgrounds steal those for fun...but of course let's blame the "illegals" for that too.
Common sense huh? You tell me what percentage of cars you see with that done and then we can discuss how it is "common." I would bet that less than 5% of car owners run a razor blade through their sticker.
I didn't say exclusively illegals stole them for "fun." I said they stole them to drive their cars without being harassed by the police for lack of registration. I will blame them for the actions in which they partake. If others happen to take those actions as well so be it. However since they have a clear need and take clear action to meet it, I will blame them for it.
Quote:
Yeah, I have no base for reasoning...whatever that means. And I did not "have to resort" to anything. I was being sarcastic. Genocide? You can't be that dense?
Sarcastic...please... you made a clear accusation. You said his "tone" implied hatred. You can try to wiggle out if it but you got called and are now backtracking.
Quote:
By the tone of your rhetoric I get the feeling YOU might want to shoot them too?
Seems pretty clear to me that you are attempting to give a racist motive to his actions. My claim stands as does your lack of reasoning.
Quote:
You mean noT supporting illegal immigration? You're funny. In my post I used sarcasm regarding the other guy's attitude towards illegal immigrants. You on the other hand grouped everyone into one category: foreigners. There is a difference. Got it? Nah, that's asking too much.
Sure I've got it but when you claim someone a racist they would hate all foreigners including legal immigrants. If you don't want someone shooting down your conclusions about calling someone a racist, then don't call someone a racist.
Quote:
Nice try. By the way, the word you were looking for was RATIONALE.
Post a bit more often and you won't run every post through a spellchecker all the time. Likewise you will make some typo's and grammatical mistakes as well. These forums are for discussion and people write as they talk. You want to nitpick on the spelling of one word since you have no ideas about which to discuss. I suppose, for example, that you intentionally capitalized not as noT as you did above? Get a grip.
Quote:
I own a business and it appears to me you don't have the IQ or the business acumen to . There are ways to get the facts necessary to safely and ethically hire someone without coming across as racist.
BTW, don't end sentences with prepositions. Bad grammar you know. You are correct that there are ways to get information to hire someone without coming across as racist. You have to apply the same procedure to all employees to do this though. What you suggested is that when presented documentation that they are legally entitled to work, the employer somehow selectively know or check which documentation is valid and which is not valid. They could just require a background check on everyone who applies there. However background checks cost money and since they couldn't apply it selectively it would raise the cost of hiring everyone.
So again we have the same solution as is often proposed which is raise the cost for everyone and inconvenience everyone just to catch a small percentage of cheats.
My business is landlording. I run a credit check on each applicant who wants to rent one of my houses or units. I could also run a Social Security Number trace and criminal background check on every applicant. However that would take $10 per applicant and turn it into $50-60. It would also take what is usually a one hour turnaround and turn it into a wait of a week or possible more.
The return is too small for the investment. Most people just trust the documentation assuming that the state is doing its job properly.
As for whether I have the IQ to run a business. Well I know my IQ is between 135-145 depending upon the test. I have a college degree and am working on my masters. I have no problem putting the networth of my rental business up against most other businesses and coming out ahead.
So can question whatever you want, it is a cheap tactic from someone who is desperate and cannot defend what they say.
Quote:
How impressive. He called me an a$$hole. Do you feel so overwhelmed in this discussion that you have to resort to insults? Who the f*ck are you to assume things about me anyway? You don't know anything about me. Come back when you can at least pretend this discussion is not way out of your league. And bring your dictionary.
Yes I'll bring my dictionary. Maybe when you stand on it, you can start pretending and acting like a grown up. If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen as they say. You are being a hypocrit because you know you would be the first one decrying racial profiling while at the same time complaining that businesses hire illegals. You want your cake and to eat it too. You've proven nothing otherwise so deal with it.
Instead people want the state to hand out licenses with no background checks, then sue owners for highering folks illegally. The responsibilities are too mixed up there.
I think you're (intentionally?) confusing a drivers license with social security cars and other types of federal paperwork.
No legit store owner could be in trouble for hiring an illegal with a valid drivers license because no legit store owner could hire anyone based off of a drivers license.
I think you're (intentionally?) confusing a drivers license with social security cars and other types of federal paperwork.
No legit store owner could be in trouble for hiring an illegal with a valid drivers license because no legit store owner could hire anyone based off of a drivers license.
They use a drivers license in addition to Social Security card, etc to verify their ability to be employed. I have mentioned that here before. I'm not trying to confuse the issue.
What confuses the issue is taking illegal people and giving them one legal document (a drivers license) which use to require other legal documents to get. So the person who was using false documentation had to falsify the whole package.
Now they will be able to get a tax id number (not social) without a background check. Then they can get a license. However they still have no Social Security card, green card, etc. If they do, they will be false.
So it will be up to the business owner (according to some here) to determine whether the person he is hiring is legal or illegal when half the documentation is legit, and half is not. Likewise if he consistantly seems to probe excessively into the backgrounds of only certain types of people (likely Mexicans since they make up the bulk of illegal immigrants, even among all hispanics) the owner can be accused of racist motives.
I'm not confusing it. Again the state has done so with SB60. They are taking on some federal role (immigration status) which they should not do.
This sounds like you are accusing someone of lying.
As shown by links above, the California driver's license requires some sort of proof of legal entry. Most people requiring to see a driver's license assume that the person has not "intentionally" furnished falsified information, and assume that because of this requirement the California driver's license is a derivative form of proof of legal standing in this country.
The easiest derivative example is for purchase of alcohol or tobacco. Since some proof of birth date is required to get the driver's license, businesses believe that the driver's license is adequate proof of age, rather than asking for a birth certificate. In fact, the California driver's license is probably considered to be better than the birth certificate because of the photograph.
People in this thread have argued that this is not responsible behavior for a business. Perhaps it isn't, but out of the thousands of businesses in the state, I doubt whether all business owners know that the California driver's license is not a valid means of certifying anything other than related to the operation of a motor vehicle.
Therefore, if you (the subject poster) are a California resident, you are (intentionally?) misrepresenting the situation.
I challenge any California resident posing on these boards to cite instances where they have been asked for proof of identity for employment (other than state or government employment), beyond a California driver's license and Social Security card so that we have anecdotal evidence in this thread. A Social Security card doesn't even have a picture and is not supposed to be used for anything except taxpayer and social security purposes, and I don't have to ask for evidence that it is used otherwise.
In fact, I doubt whether most employment applications are verified (other than by state or government employers or educational institutions), by which I mean that the information provided by the applicant is assumed to be true (driver's license number, social security number, address, educational achievements, criminal record, marital status, etc) except as specifically required for the job (i.e., driving record).
Additionally, look at the process for obtaining a duplicate Social Security card. All that is required is proof of identity. What is one form of acceptable proof? A driver's license.
My business is landlording. I run a credit check on each applicant who wants to rent one of my houses or units. I could also run a Social Security Number trace and criminal background check on every applicant. However that would take $10 per applicant and turn it into $50-60. It would also take what is usually a one hour turnaround and turn it into a wait of a week or possible more.
As for whether I have the IQ to run a business. Well I know my IQ is between 135-145 depending upon the test. I have a college degree and am working on my masters. I have no problem putting the networth of my rental business up against most other businesses and coming out ahead.
Wow, I'm impressed. So where does your IQ go when you post on here?
{QUOTE]I didn't get nervous with that many Democrats in one place. I work in an elementary school, they are almost exclusively staffed with Democrats. Likewise I attended the Clinton speech in Orange County in 1992. [/QUOTE]
Ahh, so you run your empire from an elementary school. Now THAT'S impressive.
Quote:
Yes I'll bring my dictionary. Maybe when you stand on it, you can start pretending and acting like a grown up. If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen as they say. You are being a hypocrit because you know you would be the first one decrying racial profiling while at the same time complaining that businesses hire illegals. You want your cake and to eat it too. You've proven nothing otherwise so deal with it.
I see. So calling someone an "a$$hole" is acting like a grown up? Yeah, you're very mature yourself then. Not once did I "complain" about businesses hiring illegals, but I guess you must be getting really desperate to start putting words in other people's mouths.
Keep trying. Maybe by the time you get to 3000 posts you'll come up with something worthwile. You obviously have the time.
I'm not confusing it. Again the state has done so with SB60. They are taking on some federal role (immigration status) which they should not do.
I believe I also clearly stated that as well.
I've stated that SB60 probably sucks ass.
The SS# is the key. Check that, if it's possible for a business to do, and all is well. No other documentation seems to matter. The drivers license doesn't mean squat right now to an employer, and it would mean less if the system was streamlined to give anyone able to drive a license. Employers would have no excuse to pretend a drivers license was proof of eligibility to work. It would reduce dependency on such a fallible document and push it towards the correct documentation: the SS#.
The SS# is the key. Check that, if it's possible for a business to do, and all is well. No other documentation seems to matter. The drivers license doesn't mean squat right now to an employer, and it would mean less if the system was streamlined to give anyone able to drive a license. Employers would have no excuse to pretend a drivers license was proof of eligibility to work. It would reduce dependency on such a fallible document and push it towards the correct documentation: the SS#.
Comments
You shouldn't necessarily allow an illegal to get a license, but the system should not be a thick enough to even figure out if an applicant is or is not legal. If any human being applies, the process should be agnostic. If you make the system more than agnostic, you're making the cost of the process prohibitive for the taxpayers while adding no value.
Originally posted by steve666
Yeh, they are going to buy auto insurance-are you kidding me? They can't speak english but they are going to know all our traffic laws? Hey, heres an idea-how abort deporting them? Hear anything about laws, or do they mean nothing to you?.............................................. .........
And you know they won't buy insurance how? You buy a car, you register it with proof of insurance.
I didn't know traffic SIGNS were all worded. Maybe in your own little world they are.
The exams are written in various languages for that purpose Einstein.
How "abort" deporting them? By the tone of your rhetoric I get the feeling YOU might want to shoot them too?
Maybe you should read your little post about "common sense" and "brains". Have a feeling you could use some improvement in both areas.
Originally posted by trumptman
This has been mentioned before. How do you prosecute employers when the illegal immigrants provide a false set of documents?
Nick
Right. It's soooo difficult to double check those documents. Here's an idea...maybe they don't care to double check them?
Originally posted by Gilsch
And you know they won't buy insurance how? You buy a car, you register it with proof of insurance.
I didn't know traffic SIGNS were all worded. Maybe in your own little world they are.
The exams are written in various languages for that purpose Einstein.
How "abort" deporting them? By the tone of your rhetoric I get the feeling YOU might want to shoot them too?
Maybe you should read your little post about "common sense" and "brains". Have a feeling you could use some improvement in both areas.
You assume too much.
Here is what you really do. First you buy a car. Then you don't register it. Lastly what you do is go find any car that has the registration sticker stuck on top of the old sticker, peel it off, and stick it on your plate.
Then you drive with no registration and no insurance. Not really to hard since you are driving with no license either.
Maybe in your own little world you didn't have to take a razor blade and run it through your registration sticker to keep them from being stolen but when I worked in Long Beach and South Central LA, I did have to do that after I got sick of being pulled over MYSELF for them being missing. The third time in one year was enough for me and I was shown the razor blade trick by my fellow teachers.
And only someone who has no base for their reasoning would have to resort to claiming that someone who wants legal and illegal immigrants treated differently must also be seeking genocide.
No supporting illegal immigration rights does not equal kill all foreigners. Got that? Good.
Nick
Originally posted by Gilsch
Right. It's soooo difficult to double check those documents. Here's an idea...maybe they don't care to double check them?
Except for one thing there Sherlock, you have to have a rational to question the documentation.
See if you just assume you should check them because the guy is Mexican, that is called RACIST and RACIAL PROFILING.
Unless you have reason to doubt the documentation you have to accept it as it is given with no doubts.
Trying owning a business yourself and when someone who isn't an illegal immigrant gets pissed off at your racist questions regarding their background and documentation, they will own your business and you will be on the evening news.
Funny thing is I know you would be the first a$$hole screaming about racial profiling when certain ethnicities were disproportionately subjected to background checks.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
See if you just assume you should check them because the guy is Mexican, that is called RACIST and RACIAL PROFILING.
See, but you should check in case they're Czech, Australian, Chinese or Lithuanian too.
Originally posted by bunge
See, but you should check in case they're Czech, Australian, Chinese or Lithuanian too.
Sure and check them if they are native born citizens as well because who the hell needs privacy in this day and age?
I totally want my employer in my a$$crack just to make sure someone else isn't giving out a fake license and isn't accused of racism.
This ist just like the license issue where instead of background checks, they wanted to fingerprint the entire state.
I don't need to give up my privacy just so we can persecute some business owner for hiring an illegal immigrant who broke the law to get into the country and then broke the law to get illegal documentation.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that whole your rights ends at my nose thing. I don't want people's noses in my business just to try to justify findind out illegals are illegal and suing the business owner. Way too much time and inconvenience there.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that whole your rights ends at my nose thing. I don't want people's noses in my business just to try to justify findind out illegals are illegal and suing the business owner. Way too much time and inconvenience there.
Not jerky at all.
I think business owners already have to 'prove' that the people trying to get jobs are legit. So, I'm not sure what else they would have to do. You can't get hired legally with just a license. If you've got fake papers then the whole license issue is moot.
1. When applying for a driving licence in California (or any other state of the Union), is one required to show some valid document attesting one's identity or is it enough to say ?I'm Moishelé Abencadoque from Barstow, California??
2. In your prefectures, does a driving licence serve any purpose other than attesting that its bearer successfully passed a driving test?
Thank you.
Originally posted by bunge
Not jerky at all.
I think business owners already have to 'prove' that the people trying to get jobs are legit. So, I'm not sure what else they would have to do. You can't get hired legally with just a license. If you've got fake papers then the whole license issue is moot.
You usually have to show a social security number as well or proof of legal immigration. These documents are easily purchased.
You are correct that it makes it moot for the business owner. However the state has more rights than the business owner. Since it produces the documents being forged, they have the right to take action against it, check backgrounds, etc.
Instead people want the state to hand out licenses with no background checks, then sue owners for highering folks illegally. The responsibilities are too mixed up there.
What Prop 187 proved is that even with the state involved it is a convulted issue. The state shouldn't even be into background checks either. Rather they should leave it a federal issue and use federal documents (Social Security cards, green cards, etc.) to prove backgrounds are ok.
Of course that would require them being legal of course...
Nick
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
2. In your prefectures, does a driving licence serve any purpose other than attesting that its bearer successfully passed a driving test?
This is an incomplete answer, but since no one else has volunteered:
In California, a driver's license is generally accepted as proof of identity by businesses. While this may not be its intended purpose, common uses are
verification of age for purchase of tobacco or alcohol
verification of identity for boarding an airplane
verification of identity for check cashing
verification of signature for credit card transactions
Here are some interesting situations:
Once, about 25 years ago, when a passanger travelling in an automobile between San Diego and Los Angeles, my citizenship was questioned at an INS station. My California driver's license was not accepted as a valid proof of citizenship. For years following, I carried my passport.
Out of habit, the first identification I show is my military ID card. (Usually the only time I need to prove my identity is when going on a military base.) On occasion, some businesses have preferred to see my California driver's license as proof of identity rather than the military ID.
" To apply for an original driver license if you are over 18, you will need to do the following:
-Visit a DMV office (make an appointment for faster service)
-Complete application form DL 44 (An original DL44 form must be submitted. Copies will not be accepted.)
-Give a thumb print
-Have your picture taken
-Provide your social security number
-Verify your birth date and legal presence
-Pay the $12 application fee (the application fee for a commercial driver license is $57)
-Pass a vision exam
-Pass a traffic laws and sign test. There are 36 questions on the test. A passing score is at least 31 correct answers. You have three chances to pass."
Link to CA DMV page
Link for acceptable methods of providing legal presence
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]You assume too much.
Here is what you really do. First you buy a car. Then you don't register it. Lastly what you do is go find any car that has the registration sticker stuck on top of the old sticker, peel it off, and stick it on your plate.
LMAO...and -I- assume too much?? yeah, all undocumented car owners do that.
Then you drive with no registration and no insurance. Not really to hard since you are driving with no license either.
Exactly genius...no license because they can't get one. It's safer to think that the undocumented, or illegals if it makes you happier, would want to comply with as many laws as possible considering they WANT to remain in the country. You get stopped without insurance or a license and you lose the car. Not that complicated you know.
Maybe in your own little world you didn't have to take a razor blade and run it through your registration sticker to keep them from being stolen but when I worked in Long Beach and South Central LA, I did have to do that after I got sick of being pulled over MYSELF for them being missing. The third time in one year was enough for me and I was shown the razor blade trick by my fellow teachers.
How correct you are on that one. In my world, that razor blade "trick" is called common sense. By the way, kids of all ethnicities and backgrounds steal those for fun...but of course let's blame the "illegals" for that too.
And only someone who has no base for their reasoning would have to resort to claiming that someone who wants legal and illegal immigrants treated differently must also be seeking genocide.
Yeah, I have no base for reasoning...whatever that means. And I did not "have to resort" to anything. I was being sarcastic. Genocide? You can't be that dense?
No supporting illegal immigration rights does not equal kill all foreigners. Got that? Good.
You mean noT supporting illegal immigration? You're funny. In my post I used sarcasm regarding the other guy's attitude towards illegal immigrants. You on the other hand grouped everyone into one category: foreigners. There is a difference. Got it? Nah, that's asking too much.
Except for one thing there Sherlock, you have to have a rational to question the documentation.
See if you just assume you should check them because the guy is Mexican, that is called RACIST and RACIAL PROFILING.
Nice try. By the way, the word you were looking for was RATIONALE.
Unless you have reason to doubt the documentation you have to accept it as it is given with no doubts.
Trying owning a business yourself and when someone who isn't an illegal immigrant gets pissed off at your racist questions regarding their background and documentation, they will own your business and you will be on the evening news.
I own a business and it appears to me you don't have the IQ or the business acumen to . There are ways to get the facts necessary to safely and ethically hire someone without coming across as racist.
Funny thing is I know you would be the first a$$hole screaming about racial profiling when certain ethnicities were disproportionately subjected to background checks.
How impressive. He called me an a$$hole. Do you feel so overwhelmed in this discussion that you have to resort to insults? Who the f*ck are you to assume things about me anyway? You don't know anything about me. Come back when you can at least pretend this discussion is not way out of your league. And bring your dictionary.
Edit: maybe you could borrow a dictionary from your elementary school....lmao. Ah, the irony.
I get into it with both sides quite frequently. I see the same stupid tactics from both sides too. You are no different than Scott or SDW, Gilsch. It's all about bobbing and weaving and attempting to belittle the other person. You and SDW are exactly what's wrong with America today.
Originally posted by Gilsch
LMAO...and -I- assume too much?? yeah, all undocumented car owners do that.
Your statement made it clear that you didn't think they could get their car on the road and not get pulled over due to the fact that the lack of insurance would keep them from registering their vehicle. All I did is show you that by stealing a sticker from another car, they avoid that issue and so you point was moot.
Your assumption was that they couldn't drive their car, I just stated one way around it. That doesn't assume all undocumented car owners do that. It just shows it doesn't stop them from driving. The fact that they may use a different means of getting their car illegally on the road doesn't mean I am assuming, it means you are just flat out wrong about the fact that they cannot drive without registration and insurance. They can and do.
Exactly genius...no license because they can't get one. It's safer to think that the undocumented, or illegals if it makes you happier, would want to comply with as many laws as possible considering they WANT to remain in the country. You get stopped without insurance or a license and you lose the car. Not that complicated you know.
Yes except for one issue there buddy, they are likely licensed in their home country and that means they aren't driving without a license. It just means they are driving without a California drivers license.
From the DMV website..
Visitors To California
If you are a visitor in California over 18 years old and have a valid driver license from your home state or country (where you live permanently), you may drive in this state without getting a California driver license as long as your home state license remains valid.
DMV
Driving without proof of insurance or updated registration gets you a ticket. The ticket is for a fine which gets added to your DWV fees the next time you register the vehicle. It is a fix it ticket. I have received one myself. (I think I mentioned that I had this happen 3 times in one year) They do not tow your vehicle.
How correct you are on that one. In my world, that razor blade "trick" is called common sense. By the way, kids of all ethnicities and backgrounds steal those for fun...but of course let's blame the "illegals" for that too.
Common sense huh? You tell me what percentage of cars you see with that done and then we can discuss how it is "common." I would bet that less than 5% of car owners run a razor blade through their sticker.
I didn't say exclusively illegals stole them for "fun." I said they stole them to drive their cars without being harassed by the police for lack of registration. I will blame them for the actions in which they partake. If others happen to take those actions as well so be it. However since they have a clear need and take clear action to meet it, I will blame them for it.
Yeah, I have no base for reasoning...whatever that means. And I did not "have to resort" to anything. I was being sarcastic. Genocide? You can't be that dense?
Sarcastic...please... you made a clear accusation. You said his "tone" implied hatred. You can try to wiggle out if it but you got called and are now backtracking.
By the tone of your rhetoric I get the feeling YOU might want to shoot them too?
Seems pretty clear to me that you are attempting to give a racist motive to his actions. My claim stands as does your lack of reasoning.
You mean noT supporting illegal immigration? You're funny. In my post I used sarcasm regarding the other guy's attitude towards illegal immigrants. You on the other hand grouped everyone into one category: foreigners. There is a difference. Got it? Nah, that's asking too much.
Sure I've got it but when you claim someone a racist they would hate all foreigners including legal immigrants. If you don't want someone shooting down your conclusions about calling someone a racist, then don't call someone a racist.
Nice try. By the way, the word you were looking for was RATIONALE.
Post a bit more often and you won't run every post through a spellchecker all the time. Likewise you will make some typo's and grammatical mistakes as well. These forums are for discussion and people write as they talk. You want to nitpick on the spelling of one word since you have no ideas about which to discuss. I suppose, for example, that you intentionally capitalized not as noT as you did above? Get a grip.
I own a business and it appears to me you don't have the IQ or the business acumen to . There are ways to get the facts necessary to safely and ethically hire someone without coming across as racist.
BTW, don't end sentences with prepositions. Bad grammar you know. You are correct that there are ways to get information to hire someone without coming across as racist. You have to apply the same procedure to all employees to do this though. What you suggested is that when presented documentation that they are legally entitled to work, the employer somehow selectively know or check which documentation is valid and which is not valid. They could just require a background check on everyone who applies there. However background checks cost money and since they couldn't apply it selectively it would raise the cost of hiring everyone.
So again we have the same solution as is often proposed which is raise the cost for everyone and inconvenience everyone just to catch a small percentage of cheats.
My business is landlording. I run a credit check on each applicant who wants to rent one of my houses or units. I could also run a Social Security Number trace and criminal background check on every applicant. However that would take $10 per applicant and turn it into $50-60. It would also take what is usually a one hour turnaround and turn it into a wait of a week or possible more.
The return is too small for the investment. Most people just trust the documentation assuming that the state is doing its job properly.
As for whether I have the IQ to run a business.
So can question whatever you want, it is a cheap tactic from someone who is desperate and cannot defend what they say.
How impressive. He called me an a$$hole. Do you feel so overwhelmed in this discussion that you have to resort to insults? Who the f*ck are you to assume things about me anyway? You don't know anything about me. Come back when you can at least pretend this discussion is not way out of your league. And bring your dictionary.
Yes I'll bring my dictionary. Maybe when you stand on it, you can start pretending and acting like a grown up. If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen as they say. You are being a hypocrit because you know you would be the first one decrying racial profiling while at the same time complaining that businesses hire illegals. You want your cake and to eat it too. You've proven nothing otherwise so deal with it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Instead people want the state to hand out licenses with no background checks, then sue owners for highering folks illegally. The responsibilities are too mixed up there.
I think you're (intentionally?) confusing a drivers license with social security cars and other types of federal paperwork.
No legit store owner could be in trouble for hiring an illegal with a valid drivers license because no legit store owner could hire anyone based off of a drivers license.
Originally posted by bunge
I think you're (intentionally?) confusing a drivers license with social security cars and other types of federal paperwork.
No legit store owner could be in trouble for hiring an illegal with a valid drivers license because no legit store owner could hire anyone based off of a drivers license.
They use a drivers license in addition to Social Security card, etc to verify their ability to be employed. I have mentioned that here before. I'm not trying to confuse the issue.
What confuses the issue is taking illegal people and giving them one legal document (a drivers license) which use to require other legal documents to get. So the person who was using false documentation had to falsify the whole package.
Now they will be able to get a tax id number (not social) without a background check. Then they can get a license. However they still have no Social Security card, green card, etc. If they do, they will be false.
So it will be up to the business owner (according to some here) to determine whether the person he is hiring is legal or illegal when half the documentation is legit, and half is not. Likewise if he consistantly seems to probe excessively into the backgrounds of only certain types of people (likely Mexicans since they make up the bulk of illegal immigrants, even among all hispanics) the owner can be accused of racist motives.
I'm not confusing it. Again the state has done so with SB60. They are taking on some federal role (immigration status) which they should not do.
I believe I also clearly stated that as well.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
(intentionally?)
This sounds like you are accusing someone of lying.
As shown by links above, the California driver's license requires some sort of proof of legal entry. Most people requiring to see a driver's license assume that the person has not "intentionally" furnished falsified information, and assume that because of this requirement the California driver's license is a derivative form of proof of legal standing in this country.
The easiest derivative example is for purchase of alcohol or tobacco. Since some proof of birth date is required to get the driver's license, businesses believe that the driver's license is adequate proof of age, rather than asking for a birth certificate. In fact, the California driver's license is probably considered to be better than the birth certificate because of the photograph.
People in this thread have argued that this is not responsible behavior for a business. Perhaps it isn't, but out of the thousands of businesses in the state, I doubt whether all business owners know that the California driver's license is not a valid means of certifying anything other than related to the operation of a motor vehicle.
Therefore, if you (the subject poster) are a California resident, you are (intentionally?) misrepresenting the situation.
I challenge any California resident posing on these boards to cite instances where they have been asked for proof of identity for employment (other than state or government employment), beyond a California driver's license and Social Security card so that we have anecdotal evidence in this thread. A Social Security card doesn't even have a picture and is not supposed to be used for anything except taxpayer and social security purposes, and I don't have to ask for evidence that it is used otherwise.
In fact, I doubt whether most employment applications are verified (other than by state or government employers or educational institutions), by which I mean that the information provided by the applicant is assumed to be true (driver's license number, social security number, address, educational achievements, criminal record, marital status, etc) except as specifically required for the job (i.e., driving record).
Additionally, look at the process for obtaining a duplicate Social Security card. All that is required is proof of identity. What is one form of acceptable proof? A driver's license.
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]
My business is landlording. I run a credit check on each applicant who wants to rent one of my houses or units. I could also run a Social Security Number trace and criminal background check on every applicant. However that would take $10 per applicant and turn it into $50-60. It would also take what is usually a one hour turnaround and turn it into a wait of a week or possible more.
As for whether I have the IQ to run a business.
Wow, I'm impressed.
{QUOTE]I didn't get nervous with that many Democrats in one place. I work in an elementary school, they are almost exclusively staffed with Democrats. Likewise I attended the Clinton speech in Orange County in 1992. [/QUOTE]
Ahh, so you run your empire from an elementary school. Now THAT'S impressive.
Yes I'll bring my dictionary. Maybe when you stand on it, you can start pretending and acting like a grown up. If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen as they say. You are being a hypocrit because you know you would be the first one decrying racial profiling while at the same time complaining that businesses hire illegals. You want your cake and to eat it too. You've proven nothing otherwise so deal with it.
I see. So calling someone an "a$$hole" is acting like a grown up? Yeah, you're very mature yourself then. Not once did I "complain" about businesses hiring illegals, but I guess you must be getting really desperate to start putting words in other people's mouths.
Keep trying. Maybe by the time you get to 3000 posts you'll come up with something worthwile. You obviously have the time.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not confusing it. Again the state has done so with SB60. They are taking on some federal role (immigration status) which they should not do.
I believe I also clearly stated that as well.
I've stated that SB60 probably sucks ass.
The SS# is the key. Check that, if it's possible for a business to do, and all is well. No other documentation seems to matter. The drivers license doesn't mean squat right now to an employer, and it would mean less if the system was streamlined to give anyone able to drive a license. Employers would have no excuse to pretend a drivers license was proof of eligibility to work. It would reduce dependency on such a fallible document and push it towards the correct documentation: the SS#.
How can people/illegals get a Tax ID#?
Originally posted by bunge
I've stated that SB60 probably sucks ass.
The SS# is the key. Check that, if it's possible for a business to do, and all is well. No other documentation seems to matter. The drivers license doesn't mean squat right now to an employer, and it would mean less if the system was streamlined to give anyone able to drive a license. Employers would have no excuse to pretend a drivers license was proof of eligibility to work. It would reduce dependency on such a fallible document and push it towards the correct documentation: the SS#.
How can people/illegals get a Tax ID#?
Federal Taxpayer Identification Number
Nick